Freedom
In October, Atlanta Journal Constitution's cartoonist Mike Luckovich used the names of the fallen in Iraq to create “Why?”
Now, Georgia teenager Danielle Ansley has created the answer with an updated list of our nation’s heroes. Her response to Luckovich shown below, appears in today's Atlanta Journal Constitution: (Via Michelle Malkin)
Posted by Enlighten-NewJersey @ 6:32 PM
|
11 Comments:
Ah Terry, you’re back. Happy New Year!
Are you under the impression the American service men and women who lost their lives in Iraq were dupes with no idea what they were doing or why? Give our service men and women a bit more credit.
We understand the the purpose and significance their mission, you apparently do not. And you are most gloomy about the prospects for Iraq’s future. Are you always such a pessimist?
The future is never certain, but one thing is for sure, we are all better off with the Saddam Hussein regime removed from power. We’d be curious to know why you think otherwise.
What do you mean by “nice priorities”- our preference for freedom? What are yours?
In terms of valuing the lives of those who have died, we value them greatly. We morn their loss, but we believe they have not died in vain. Do you think it’s possible many, many times the number of lives lost in Iraq may actually be saved in the long run as a result of our country’s actions in the GWOT which includes the mission in Iraq?
Finally, do you think everyone that disagrees with you is “sick”?
How is it that you are able to claim Iraq posed no threat and yet call for “a covert operation doing a targeted hit job.”? It seems we agree on the mission, but merely disagree on the tactics for getting the job done. And while we are on the subject, would you care to explain how your covert operation would have been carried out? Who would have been targeted for a hit and what would have happened after we managed to pull off this caper?
You believe we have violated and abused the trust of our military service members, why? Because service men and woman have been killed in Iraq? What if some American service members had been killed trying to pull off your covert operation, does your choice of tactic somehow make a difference?
Here’s an in-depth report on recruiting in the US military completed by the Government Accountability Office (GAO). Perhaps you should read it and disabuse yourself of the notion of lost trust by the military. For 2005 statistics for Army recruitment and retention, try reading this page.
As far the poll you cite - Did you read the entire article or just the parts that fit your opinion? "Military Times, which publishes popular magazines for each of the US military branches including Army Times and Navy Times, cautioned that its poll, of 1,215 active-duty servicemen, is not necessarily representative of the military as a whole."
What does Jack Murtha’s being unwilling to join the military today have to do with anything? We’ll bet Ted Kennedy wouldn’t join either. As a matter of fact most people didn’t join the military pre or post Iraq invasion, but more people are in the U.S. military today than before 9/11. How’d that happen? FYI, we particularly liked the part where the interviewer tells Murtha what “he’s saying.”
A weakened military? How do you come to that conclusion? It was our understanding a battle tested military was a stronger military.
How do you reach the conclusion the United States is not fighting the “real war on terror” and resources are being diverted? Where should we be fighting instead of Iraq and Afghanistan? How did you get the impression the administration is not using a variety of tactics in other parts of the world to prevent attacks in the U.S. and to round up terrorists? Information abounds about the GWOT, successes we’ve had and the tactics the government is employing - financial, diplomatic and military. We’ll even bet they are some covert operations going on.
Perhaps you could explain why people who support the troops and our civilian leadership are a problem. A problem to whom? The terrorists and their supporters?
Unfortunately, it is you lacking understanding of the connection between Saddam and terrorists. You might want to take a look at this ABC News video on the subject. The report aired pre 9/11 and pre Bush administration.
Have you always been under the impression Iraq was not a threat to the security of our country? If so what was up with the UN embargoes, resolutions, weapons inspectors, no fly zone patrols, bombings and official U.S. policy of regime in Iraq under President Clinton? And why did you write that you preferred “a covert operation doing a targeted hit job” in Iraq if that country “played no part in the security of our country?”
You ask “why haven't we eviscerated Saudi Arabia yet?” The reasons are too numerous to mention here, but perhaps you could tell us why you are suggesting we should? Are you aware that all 19 9/11 hijackers are dead? Are you aware it was not the Saudi government behind the 9/11 attacks, but the hijackers all spent time in terrorist training camps in Afghanistan? That might have has something to do with our military action in that country, don't you think?
You ask “how do you interpret the new Islamic regime that was recently elected in Iraq? Is that progress for you?” We must have missed that one. We were under the impression a coalition government was being formed – see the AP article - Sunni deal may bring broad Iraq coalition – dated Jan 3. Sounds like progress to us.
The name calling really didn’t add much to your argument. “Very, very sick and twisted.” If anything is twisted, we’d say it’s your logic
Although Terry's covert operations sounds dubious, so is Iraq's future. Pointing to Iraqi elections and other concrete accomplishments is a much better defense for the war.
It's not fair to simply dismiss all pessimism with the abstract goal of "freedom". If the Bush administration actually supported "freedom" as much as they harp on about it in speeches, then we'd have a much different policy with China, Saudi Arabia, and other dictatorships.
- Jersey Perspective
Jack,
Happy New Year! As you probably know we have been pointing out the positive news in Iraq. Still the pessimism from many on the left continues. And as we all know the President provided a long list of reasons for going into Iraq prior to the invasion that are too numerous to get into in the comments section. (The comments are getting longer than our main posts.)
Terry however is stuck on repeating the "Iraq wasn't a threat" meme, but at the same time he gets tangled up with having to agree we are all better off with Saddam Hussein's regime removed from power. That's why he came up with the "dubious" covert operation idea. He’s trying to have it both ways – Saddam’s regime gone without admitting an invasion was necessary.
We thought Danielle Ansley's one word response "Freedom" to the snarky one word question "Why" was great. And considerably more fair if that's the point of each.
If you were an Iraqi, which future would have preferred – a future under Saddam, fully aware of his barbarous rule or a chance for a brighter future under a democratically elected government? As an American, we prefer a future without Saddam in power for the sake of our own country and others.
Would you care to tell us about the policies the Bush administration should have in relation to China, Saudi Arabia, and other dictatorships? Give us a quick overview of our current policies and explain specifically the changes you believe need to be made for the Bush administration to be taken seriously about freedom they “harp” on?
Nice try on changing the subject, though. The post was about Iraq, as were Terry's comments.
Happy New Year too.
I'm not changing the subject and I didn't propose any different policy for China, Saudi Arabia etc. I was simply stating that if international FREEDOM was such a priority for the U.S govt, then it wouldn't have such nice relations with Saudi Arabia, China etc.
I don't know what I'd think if I was Iraqi. Probably depends on which part of the country I was living in.
- Jersey Perspective
Jack,
You are trying to change the subject from Iraq to U.S. foreign policy relative to other nations. But since you brought it up, perhaps you could explain what you mean by "such nice relations"? Is that opposed to “not nice relations’?
Do you notice any difference,for example,between the “nice relations” we have with Great Britain and the “nice relations” we have with China? Or the “nice relations” we have with Canada and the ”nice relation” we have with Saudi Arabia? And why if international FREEDOM was really a priority to our government are you so sure our relations would need to different to achieve the objective?
About your preference if you were an Iraqi, think about it for awhile. We’d be curious to know what your circumstances would need to be for you to choose life under Saddam Hussein’s regime.
Nice means we don't go to war with them or impose sanctions on them.
If I had a family before the invasion and I didn't afterwards, I'd probably prefer the Saddam version.
- Jersey Perspective
Pretty good post. I just stumbled upon your blog and wanted to say that I have really enjoyed reading your blog posts.Any way Ill be subscribing to your feed and I hope you post again soon.
I am really happy to see this post. It has been very long since i saw a really informative and decent post like this. Thank you so much for contributing your valuable time for sharing this here.. Looking forward to see more of your post. healthy cooking
I am preparing a research paper and collecting information on this topic. Your post is one of the better that I have read. Recreational online dispensary Canada
Love with regards to another excellent publish. In which different may any person get of which style of facts. אגזוזי ספורט
Post a Comment
<< Home